This paragraph needs to be re-written to ensure that the two reverse
zones (170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa and 171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa)
are created and are insecurely delegated from the parent zone. Otherwise
there is no point in having recursive servers answer for them.
As a practical
This paragraph is factually incorrect.
Possibly this problem could have been avoided if we had forced all
NAT64 gateways to use the same Well-Known Prefix for IPv6 address
synthesis [RFC6052]. If the decision had been made to use a single
fixed Well-Known Prefix, then there would
Dear DNSOP,
Stuart Cheshire & David Schinazi have asked me to AD sponsor the
draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa document
[0]
..
>From the document:
"The specification for how a client discovers its network's NAT64 prefix
[RFC7050] defines the special name 'ipv4only.arpa' for this purpose,
And with this, the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel is
closed (actually last Friday already).
We will continue with the next step with the AD for this document, Terry
Manderson.
-- Benno
On 02/07/2018 22:20, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Firstly, thank you! (for keeping the WG
On 4/7/18 1:40 am, Joe Abley wrote:
On 3 Jul 2018, at 09:11, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
This is not a complete review of the latest revision.. I'm hoping to get to
that in a day or two. But I've got a question about whether something should
be added to the document..
A question came up
